Iran declares victory over the USA

The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy!! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there! What could be more humiliating than this?! :rofl:

Iran leader's Iraq visit eclipses US, Arab ties

Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:08am EST
By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

<snip>

Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

Bush's last visit in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours.

Well to be honest, the US economy is far from bankrupt and Iraq is far from lost. Although a win is a little but of a stretch; they certainly achieved what they set out to do, where they messed up was in the engame, ie it seems that there wasn't a plan after the war.

To be honest, I actually look at this as quite positive, Iran establishing relations with Iraq, putting aside former differences. But maybe I'm seeing the event through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.

Staff: Mentor

Staff: Mentor

To be honest, I actually look at this as quite positive, Iran establishing relations with Iraq, putting aside former differences. But maybe I'm seeing the event through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.

There is an interesting possibility there, of Iran becoming friends with a pro-US government. And there is as much danger for Iran as for us. This visit was a shot in the proxy-war Iran is waging against the US in Iraq. Having a pro-US country on their border would be double-bad for Iran. Besides the physical security risk, the political risk of a functional and prosperous democracy right next door for their people to be jealous of would be very bad for Iran.

Staff: Mentor

The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy!! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there!

Firstly, as Russ indicated, I have not heard any claims of victory on the part of Iran.

Secondly, the US is not going bankrupt, but the $200 billion/yr for the war is a serious drain in the US treasury.

Thirdly, the US government is not handing Iraq to Iran, rather it appears that the US government is not interfering in Iraqi foreign affairs, as is appropriate. It is up to the Iraqi government to conduct its affairs, and that means establish trade and stable relationships with all its neighbors. I suspect that Iraqis will want to be Iraqis first, rather than be controlled by US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or whomever.

There is an interesting possibility there, of Iran becoming friends with a pro-US government. And there is as much danger for Iran as for us. This visit was a shot in the proxy-war Iran is waging against the US in Iraq. Having a pro-US country on their border would be double-bad for Iran. Besides the physical security risk, the political risk of a functional and prosperous democracy right next door for their people to be jealous of would be very bad for Iran.

What about having a pro-Iran government in Iraq that the US can't do anything about?

Iran and the US aren't "longtime enemies," as the article states. In fact, the youth in Iran have favorable views of the US. I'm very optimistic aobut our future relations with Iran. My views come mostly from the many, many Iranians I have met, who tend to be over-represented in the sciences (and damn good scientists, as well).

I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking. Iraq has a large ****e population; of course they can be expected to have close ties to Iran.

Everything I've read/heard about Iran tells me the populace is fairly liberal. It's almost like a case of the US in the 50's, where the "adults" projected one image, but in reality most people were somewhere else.

Just another case of people in power having more say than the people who actually elected them.

Iran and the US aren't "longtime enemies," as the article states. In fact, the youth in Iran have favorable views of the US. I'm very optimistic aobut our future relations with Iran. My views come mostly from the many, many Iranians I have met, who tend to be over-represented in the sciences (and damn good scientists, as well).

I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking. Iraq has a large ****e population; of course they can be expected to have close ties to Iran.

:rofl::rofl:

I didn't know there was a profanity filter here at PF!!! I didn't mean "****e," I meant Shi'ite!!!

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

Australia also faced a real bill much greater than the $2.2billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars.

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy!!

Peter Wilson said:

Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

So, who doesn't know the difference between a slowdown and going bankrupt, Stiglitz, Wilson, fourier jr, or me?

Staff: Mentor

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis had to do with sloppy and possibly illegal lending practices, and is complete independent from the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

The report in the Australian seems to be a case of sloppy journalism.

The US envolvement in Iraq is entering its 5th year and the cost is less the $1 trillion at the moment, but it certainly will increase the longer the US maintains 150,000 troops and 10's of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

For the record, I vehemently disagree with Bush and Cheney's policies. Both have shown a callous disregard for human life.

Firstly, as Russ indicated, I have not heard any claims of victory on the part of Iran.

Secondly, the US is not going bankrupt, but the $200 billion/yr for the war is a serious drain in the US treasury.

Thirdly, the US government is not handing Iraq to Iran, rather it appears that the US government is not interfering in Iraqi foreign affairs, as is appropriate. It is up to the Iraqi government to conduct its affairs, and that means establish trade and stable relationships with all its neighbors. I suspect that Iraqis will want to be Iraqis first, rather than be controlled by US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or whomever.

One should not forget that the name of the country; Iran, is derived from the term Aryan.

And that the Arabs and Persians have not been good friends for about 1500 years.

and that it's only now that it is convenient that they are both Muslim countries, and the great country to the west is apparently weakened, that they should become friends.

Now that it is known(not that it wasn't 30 years ago), that Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, one would think that there has been some poker playing going on for a while.

Unfortunately, the US populous is still intellectually ahead of the game.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis had to do with sloppy and possibly illegal lending practices, and is complete independent from the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

The report in the Australian seems to be a case of sloppy journalism.

The US envolvement in Iraq is entering its 5th year and the cost is less the $1 trillion at the moment, but it certainly will increase the longer the US maintains 150,000 troops and 10's of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

For the record, I vehemently disagree with Bush and Cheney's policies. Both have shown a callous disregard for human life.

Actually, it's over a trillion dollars if you count all the "hidden" costs.

Now that it is known(not that it wasn't 30 years ago), that Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, one would think that there has been some poker playing going on for a while..

I'll say: US & UK teamed up to depose the democratic government of Iran (prime minister) Because of his refusal to supply oil concessions favourable to the UK, and installed the Shah (puppet monarchic dictator/despot) Iran has been rather screwed by our political machinations. And then we have the nerve to turn around and complain about Iran not being a democracy, that's rich. Seems to me we've done everything in our power to create a pro US/UK/West Iran and we couldn't even do that, see operation ajax. Since Iran isn't exactly poverty stricken despite our best attempts, I don't think it'll be that bothered by a prosperous democracy on its doorstep. After all at least it's government was chosen by popular consent, even if it isn't exactly a democracy.

Still the hypocrisy of the ME never ceases to amaze me. Seems to be: create the problem then go in and clean it up every time, unbefrickinglievable. Give Iran nuclear power stations (US) and enrichment technology (Europe) And then moan at it when it enriches Uranium, which it is entitled to do under the NPT, then claim its working towards/has nukes (a lie more or less as they had no idea, and CIA believes it cancelled its weapons program in 2003) So now it has sanctions only for not being open about its enrichment, not for a breach of NPT. To be frank if Iran is working against the US it only has itself to blame. I give up trying to predict what rich statement is going to come from the US government next, when we getting a new president again? I wonder if Gordon Brown is going to be the same sort of toady as TB?

Staff: Mentor

One of the figures in that article shows projected costs to 2017, so it's hard to discern what has been the cost with what will be the cost. I was reflecting on direct costs, so it's true that indirect costs push the overall cost above $1 trillion - most of which has yet to be paid by US taxpayers. Ostensibly, it's difficult to say what the projected costs will be because the US will presumably be an ongoing target of those who will want to retaliate for the war in Iraq.

The price of all has had an upward pressure anyway from the growth of Chinese and Indian economies (not to mention the rampant and irresponsible speculation on the oil trading markets), but the threat to Iraqi oil supply has probably put a greater pressure on the price of oil. As for lost investment, continued sanctions would have held down investment in Iraq.